Hi, On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> I cannot produce (top of my head) any other POSIX API calls that > allow you to specify another clock source, but they are there, > somewhere. If I am to introduce a new API, I better make it > flexible enough so that other subsystems can use it for more stuff > other than... So we have to deal at kernel level with every broken timeout specification that comes along? > >Why is not sufficient to just add a relative/absolute version, > >which convert the time at entry to kernel time? > > ...adding more versions that add complexity and duplicate > code in many different places (user-to-kernel copy, syscall entry > points, timespec validation). And the minute you add a clock_id > you can steal some bits for specifying absolute/relative (or vice > versa), so it is almost a win-win situarion. What "more versions" are you talking about? When you convert a user time to kernel time you can automatically validate it and later you can use standard kernel APIs, so you don't have to add even more API bloat. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/